Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
Oh good grief. This is a forum for the discussion of science, not the fantastical belief systems of illiterate, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, genocidal and religiously intolerant subsistence farmers whose ill-founded opinions on matters scientific, moral and ethical are almost entirely irrelevant to today's world. I will not be stoning people to death for shaving their beards nor for eating shellfish or pork, or for worshipping false idols, nor will I be selling, killing, or offering my children up to be raped based on the rantings of the schizophrenics and theocrats that created the various Abrahamic religions. While it is hard to shake off a belief system that has been rammed down your throat since you were a baby, ask yourself why you are an 'x' branded Christian rather than a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Taoist, Confucian, Cao Daist, Chendoist, Scientologist, Morman, Shintosist, Buddist, Sikh, Zoroastrian, Wiccan, Druid, or one of the thousands of different Animist and Pantheist belief systems that have permeated the world in the last hundred thousand years and have all been to their believers "the one true faith". You think they were all wrong but yet your brand is miraculously right? Can you not see how colossally ridiculous that is? If you think that living in a community where others share your beliefs makes you right then consider that christians are less than 5% of everyone who has ever lived. Classical Greeks had a far better scientific understanding of the world than any of the Abrahamic religions that came after them, and arguably better than anyone else up until the Renaissance. Amongst actual historians (not theologians) there is doubt that Jesus even existed - he is not mentioned specifically by any non-religious contemporary accounts of either the Romans or the Jewish heirachy, and contradictory accounts were systematically destroyed or edited out of existence during the Dark Ages leaving the Bible, a very small selection of some of the less silly gospels recorded decades to centuries after the supposed events that they claim to relate and only after being embellished and reconstructed and edited through numerous oral retellings by illiterates with dubious mental health. As such it contributes nothing to better understanding physics, biology, chemistry or any other branch of science. So if you want to live your life in quasi-adherence to some of the less obnoxious directives that you find in whichever version or interpretation of the Gospels that you happen to like then that is your choice, but don't presume that it gives you any authority or significant insight, because your adherence to ridiculous and demonstrably wrong scientific theories like "Intelligent Design" in defence of your religious dogma makes it obvious that you are badly ham-strung in discussing science. You need an open mind in order to be able contribute anything useful. On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > > Well, this is just one case wherein science has verified the accounts of > the > > Bible. There are many many many instances of this. The Bible is not a > > book of Science but when it does make a statement about science, it has > been > > found to be true. > > > > Did you know that the Bible says the Earth is round, thousands of years > > before man discovered it is round. It is the only ancient book of its > time > > that has made this statement. > > > > Did you know that the Bible says that the Sun has a "Circuit" - a > pathway in > > which it follows, thousands of years before we discovered that the sun > does > > indeed follow a pathway around the center of the Milky Way. > > > > There are many many many facts like this that the Bible categorically > > states; and science finally catches up with the Bible and verifies it. > > > > There is not a single fact in the Bible that Science has contradicted. I > > said "Science", the real science; not the "Bad Science", not the > politically > > driven science we know today. > > > > > > > > Jojo > > > > - Original Message - From: "Harry Veeder" > > To: > > Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2012 3:46 AM > > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) > > > > > >> Parts of the Earth may have undergone rapid catastrophic flooding > >> thousands of years ago, but you don't have to believe in the bible to > >> argue the case. > >> The theory that some geological features formed very quickly instead > >> of gradually is compatible with Earth being billions of years old. > >> Harry > >> > >> > > > >
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
If the bible is suppose to be as good or even better than science it should not use such vague language. harry On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > Well, this is just one case wherein science has verified the accounts of the > Bible. There are many many many instances of this. The Bible is not a > book of Science but when it does make a statement about science, it has been > found to be true. > > Did you know that the Bible says the Earth is round, thousands of years > before man discovered it is round. It is the only ancient book of its time > that has made this statement. > > Did you know that the Bible says that the Sun has a "Circuit" - a pathway in > which it follows, thousands of years before we discovered that the sun does > indeed follow a pathway around the center of the Milky Way. > > There are many many many facts like this that the Bible categorically > states; and science finally catches up with the Bible and verifies it. > > There is not a single fact in the Bible that Science has contradicted. I > said "Science", the real science; not the "Bad Science", not the politically > driven science we know today. > > > > Jojo > > - Original Message - From: "Harry Veeder" > To: > Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2012 3:46 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) > > >> Parts of the Earth may have undergone rapid catastrophic flooding >> thousands of years ago, but you don't have to believe in the bible to >> argue the case. >> The theory that some geological features formed very quickly instead >> of gradually is compatible with Earth being billions of years old. >> Harry >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
Well, this is just one case wherein science has verified the accounts of the Bible. There are many many many instances of this. The Bible is not a book of Science but when it does make a statement about science, it has been found to be true. Did you know that the Bible says the Earth is round, thousands of years before man discovered it is round. It is the only ancient book of its time that has made this statement. Did you know that the Bible says that the Sun has a "Circuit" - a pathway in which it follows, thousands of years before we discovered that the sun does indeed follow a pathway around the center of the Milky Way. There are many many many facts like this that the Bible categorically states; and science finally catches up with the Bible and verifies it. There is not a single fact in the Bible that Science has contradicted. I said "Science", the real science; not the "Bad Science", not the politically driven science we know today. Jojo - Original Message - From: "Harry Veeder" To: Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2012 3:46 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) Parts of the Earth may have undergone rapid catastrophic flooding thousands of years ago, but you don't have to believe in the bible to argue the case. The theory that some geological features formed very quickly instead of gradually is compatible with Earth being billions of years old. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
Axil, I feel your pain and I agree. The issues you raised below are valid criticisms. But there is one thing you need to realize. These actions are the actions of the Catholic Church, not the real Biblical Christian Church. The Catholic Church is a political construction and indeed was used as a political tool to subdue people, including the real Christian Church, who went underground during the reign of the Catholic Church until recently. Indeed the history of much of Europe is the story of the Catholic Pope's vie for political power. So, in fact, the real Christian Church was as much a victim of the excesses and political ambitions of the Catholic Church as the rest. However, there are a couple of things I need to correct in your posts below: 1. The Bible is indeed a book of faith and morals; but it is also definitely a book of history. Archeaologists have long since verified almost all of the historical accounts of the Bible. It is a scientifically verifiable historical account of many many many events. I think you will agree with this. 2. The Bible is a book of Morals, but not between men in his society. It is a book of covenants between man and God. That is why we call it a Testament - The Old and the New Testaments. A Testament is a Covenant. 3. With regards to Gnosticism, in fact Early Christians were correct in rejecting it. Gnosticism is a corruption of Biblical Teaching and was pridominantly the result of Early Christians attempts to incorporate Eastern Mysticism into Christian teachings. 4. King James did not rework the Bible. He commissioned it to be translated to common English. The Bible was already a completed collection of books during his time. But no common English translation was done, so he did it. No, King James had nothing to do at all in changing the contents of the Bible. It would seem that his King James translation was a change because of the many erroneous practices of the Catholic Church at that time. When people read the real Bible, they started to realize that Catholic teachings were a corruption of real Biblical teachings. Jojo BTW, Constantine was never a Christian. He simply used Christianity to unify his kingdom. - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2012 3:03 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) The Bible is a book of faith and morals. Morals is a a component of the social contract between a person and his society. As society evolved over time, and so did the moral contract defined in the Bible. The thing that bothers me with the bible as a basis for scientific thought is as follows: When the Bible became a political tool of kings, these monarchs decided what material was in their interest to retain or discard. In 325AD, the First Council of Nicaea was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day İznik in Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Trinitarian issue of the nature of The Son and his relationship to God the Father, the construction of the first part of the Creed of Nicaea, settling the calculation of the date of Easter, and promulgation of early canon law Constantine wanted a unified church after the council for political reasons. He assigned the unification function to his theological experts. he did not force his own view because he did not have one about Christ's nature on the council, nor commission a Bible at the council that omitted books he did not approve of, although he did later commission Bibles. In fact, Constantine had little theological understanding of the issues at stake, and did not particularly care which view of Christ's nature prevailed so long as it resulted in a unified church. This can be seen in his initial acceptance of the current view of Christ's nature, only to abandon the belief several years later for political reasons; under the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia and others to downgrade the godhead of Crist.. Gnosticism was rejected by the concil and all gnostic books of the Bible were relighted to the ashcan of history. If Gnosticism became main stream as a theology, the universe would have been created in a different way...sort of like Scientology teaches today. King James of England reworked the Bible again as political exercise in 1611 to conform with his need for the new version to conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy. You know about this things...true? On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: Yes, I am a Bible Literalist. Not because I forced myself to be that; but because the evidence I have studied points in that direction. Science is about the search for the Truth. It is not a
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
Parts of the Earth may have undergone rapid catastrophic flooding thousands of years ago, but you don't have to believe in the bible to argue the case. The theory that some geological features formed very quickly instead of gradually is compatible with Earth being billions of years old. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
The Bible is a book of faith and morals. Morals is a a component of the social contract between a person and his society. As society evolved over time, and so did the moral contract defined in the Bible. The thing that bothers me with the bible as a basis for scientific thought is as follows: When the Bible became a political tool of kings, these monarchs decided what material was in their interest to retain or discard. In 325AD, the First Council of Nicaea was a council of Christian bishops convened in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day İznik in Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Trinitarian issue of the nature of The Son and his relationship to God the Father, the construction of the first part of the Creed of Nicaea, settling the calculation of the date of Easter, and promulgation of early canon law Constantine wanted a unified church after the council for political reasons. He assigned the unification function to his theological experts. he did not force his own view because he did not have one about Christ's nature on the council, nor commission a Bible at the council that omitted books he did not approve of, although he did later commission Bibles. In fact, Constantine had little theological understanding of the issues at stake, and did not particularly care which view of Christ's nature prevailed so long as it resulted in a unified church. This can be seen in his initial acceptance of the current view of Christ's nature, only to abandon the belief several years later for political reasons; under the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia and others to downgrade the godhead of Crist.. Gnosticism was rejected by the concil and all gnostic books of the Bible were relighted to the ashcan of history. If Gnosticism became main stream as a theology, the universe would have been created in a different way...sort of like Scientology teaches today. King James of England reworked the Bible again as political exercise in 1611 to conform with his need for the new version to conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy. You know about this things...true? On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > ** > Yes, I am a Bible Literalist. Not because I forced myself to be that; but > because the evidence I have studied points in that direction. > > Science is about the search for the Truth. It is not about the religion > of Naturalistic Methodologism. Science must consider all possible causes, > not just causes we can smell, see, hear, taste and touch. The search for > the truth must be allowed to reach its logical conclusion. If the evidence > points to a naturalistic solution, so be it. On the other hand, If the > evidence points to a metaphysical solution, then it must not be excluded. > > BTW, this might further cause Cognitive Dissonance for some people here, > but realize that the patriach of Modern Science was a Believer and Bible > Literalist. Isaac Newton wrote thousands of pages of Bible commentary. > > > Jojo > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > *From:* Peter Gluck > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Monday, May 28, 2012 12:54 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) > > or or means simply that Darwinism and ID cannot be both true in the same > time and even any intermediate or combined solution is not possible. Just > from curiosity are you a Bible literalist as my friend G. including > Creation and Noah's Ark. You can write directly to me< I respect your > faith. > Peter > > On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > >> ** >> As I indicated before, I hesitated in posting about the fallacies of >> Darwinian Evolution in this forum as I find this forum extremely useful and >> don't want to clutter it with other subjects. There is no need to ask me >> to stop as I have stopped and said I will only respond to any question >> posted about it. >> >> Besides, the point that I wanted to make was clearly illustrated. >> >> While, I respect and admire you, I wished you had been more unbiased. If >> I being an adherent of Intelligent Design and beleiver were to violate the >> rules of civility of this forum and suggested to James to contort and >> perform that unmanageable sexual act, I would be roundly criticized and >> asked to leave, and no doubt by you. Am I not right? >> >> Where is the unbiased, moral outrage from you regarding the blatant >> violation of the rules of civility of this forum? >> >> Demonstrate to me that you can be level-headed and demand an apology from >> James and my admiration meter for you will jump. >&g
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
OK Whatever. This will be my last response to you ever. You are welcome to have the last word and deliver some parting insult or snide remark. No sense in arguing with Darwinian Evolution fanatics; who's only interested in blaberring about things he does not know. It's akin to arguing with Parks regarding cold fusion. Jojo - Original Message - From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" To: Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 9:16 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) Jojo, you make up fantasies about what shows in this record. Why would I expect you'd have anything of substance to discuss elsewhere? I did not criticize you for hijacking the thread. This is a great example of meaning created in the mind of the reader. I wrote about what interests me. This conversation will be worth, for you, whatever you say it is worth. To be explicit, I'm declining your request. I might "want" to discuss this -- what's "this"? -- if I had a clue you were awake. I don't. So here I am. Sent from my iPhone On May 28, 2012, at 4:39 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: First you criticize me for "hijacking" this thread (which was not a hijack because I was trying to draw a parallel and I renamed the thread.), then you continue to criticize me for hijacking even though I have stopped responding, then you continue to keep this topic alive even though I and others have given it a rest. So, make up your mind. If you want to discuss this topic with me, please identify another forum and I will show up and we can continue this discussion. I have a lot of corrections to your allegations and faulty understanding of the issue. Jojo - Original Message - From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" > To: Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 3:03 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) You tell people that they "believe" in something preposterous and you fear that they will "criticize" you? The list owner could decide that discussion of evolution was not useful here. But he hasn't, AFAIK. What was a problem was the hijacking of a thread on tritium and NiH LENR, and you were not solely responsible for that. Here, the thread is about "Darwinian Evolution," whatever that is. My own interest is ontology, and how we choose (or fall into) what we "believe," as distinct from what we experience (and remember of experience, as distinct from what we made it mean.) There is a whole family of pseudosciences based on fallacious post- hoc estimation of probability. In this case, an argument is invented with a pretense of objectivity, when it is clear that the conclusion is incorporated in the assumptions. This is not about whether or not there is "intention" behind the phenomena of life. Rather it is about whether or not functional complexity beyond some level is a proof of intention. Your argument has, in fact, been circular. It's not that I deny intention itself. It is rather that discerning the purpose of life, the intention, if you will, requires stepping outside the normal machinery of thought and stepping into direct, unmediated experience. You will never get there through firm adherence to any belief. Faith can take you there, but only a faith in reality itself, which, again, I distinguish from collections of words, crystallized as meanings we prefer. Faith in reality, I'll assert, underlies genuine Science. Sent from my iPhone On May 28, 2012, at 5:42 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: Once again, I hesistate to respond to you cause that will cause people to roundly criticize me for starting a long off-topic thread. You bring up several points that need a response, to set your fallacies straight. Can you suggest a forum where we can do this? Let me know and I'll show up. Otherwise, there is nothing much I am willing to do in this forum. Jojo ----- Original Message - From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" > To: ; Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 7:52 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) At 09:11 AM 5/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: I am unsure about your point or what you are asking. What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your question? Of course,there are strong inference. For example, if you find the presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent Designer, not Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance mutations. Random processes never create Information, because information is "Order", the exact opposite of Randomness. The conclusion is being assumed. It is easy to demonstrate information in random output with or without output selection. "Information" is not defined here, and I suspect that the undisclosed definition again incorporates the conclusions. There
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
Jojo, you make up fantasies about what shows in this record. Why would I expect you'd have anything of substance to discuss elsewhere? I did not criticize you for hijacking the thread. This is a great example of meaning created in the mind of the reader. I wrote about what interests me. This conversation will be worth, for you, whatever you say it is worth. To be explicit, I'm declining your request. I might "want" to discuss this -- what's "this"? -- if I had a clue you were awake. I don't. So here I am. Sent from my iPhone On May 28, 2012, at 4:39 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: First you criticize me for "hijacking" this thread (which was not a hijack because I was trying to draw a parallel and I renamed the thread.), then you continue to criticize me for hijacking even though I have stopped responding, then you continue to keep this topic alive even though I and others have given it a rest. So, make up your mind. If you want to discuss this topic with me, please identify another forum and I will show up and we can continue this discussion. I have a lot of corrections to your allegations and faulty understanding of the issue. Jojo - Original Message - From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" > To: Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 3:03 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) You tell people that they "believe" in something preposterous and you fear that they will "criticize" you? The list owner could decide that discussion of evolution was not useful here. But he hasn't, AFAIK. What was a problem was the hijacking of a thread on tritium and NiH LENR, and you were not solely responsible for that. Here, the thread is about "Darwinian Evolution," whatever that is. My own interest is ontology, and how we choose (or fall into) what we "believe," as distinct from what we experience (and remember of experience, as distinct from what we made it mean.) There is a whole family of pseudosciences based on fallacious post- hoc estimation of probability. In this case, an argument is invented with a pretense of objectivity, when it is clear that the conclusion is incorporated in the assumptions. This is not about whether or not there is "intention" behind the phenomena of life. Rather it is about whether or not functional complexity beyond some level is a proof of intention. Your argument has, in fact, been circular. It's not that I deny intention itself. It is rather that discerning the purpose of life, the intention, if you will, requires stepping outside the normal machinery of thought and stepping into direct, unmediated experience. You will never get there through firm adherence to any belief. Faith can take you there, but only a faith in reality itself, which, again, I distinguish from collections of words, crystallized as meanings we prefer. Faith in reality, I'll assert, underlies genuine Science. Sent from my iPhone On May 28, 2012, at 5:42 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: Once again, I hesistate to respond to you cause that will cause people to roundly criticize me for starting a long off-topic thread. You bring up several points that need a response, to set your fallacies straight. Can you suggest a forum where we can do this? Let me know and I'll show up. Otherwise, there is nothing much I am willing to do in this forum. Jojo - Original Message ----- From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" To: ; Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 7:52 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) At 09:11 AM 5/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: I am unsure about your point or what you are asking. What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your question? Of course,there are strong inference. For example, if you find the presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent Designer, not Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance mutations. Random processes never create Information, because information is "Order", the exact opposite of Randomness. The conclusion is being assumed. It is easy to demonstrate information in random output with or without output selection. "Information" is not defined here, and I suspect that the undisclosed definition again incorporates the conclusions. There is order in the non-living, presumably mechanistic, universe, by any reasonable definition of order. We associate very high levels of order with life, normally, for life organizes material, it can be one of the definitions of life. For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent sentence requires the input of an Intelligent being. Easy to demonstrate otherwise. Make a random sequence generator, then select the output which makes sense. Humans actually do th
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
First you criticize me for "hijacking" this thread (which was not a hijack
because I was trying to draw a parallel and I renamed the thread.), then you
continue to criticize me for hijacking even though I have stopped
responding, then you continue to keep this topic alive even though I and
others have given it a rest.
So, make up your mind. If you want to discuss this topic with me, please
identify another forum and I will show up and we can continue this
discussion. I have a lot of corrections to your allegations and faulty
understanding of the issue.
Jojo
- Original Message -
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 3:03 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
You tell people that they "believe" in something preposterous and you
fear that they will "criticize" you?
The list owner could decide that discussion of evolution was not useful
here. But he hasn't, AFAIK. What was a problem was the hijacking of a
thread on tritium and NiH LENR, and you were not solely responsible for
that. Here, the thread is about "Darwinian Evolution," whatever that is.
My own interest is ontology, and how we choose (or fall into) what we
"believe," as distinct from what we experience (and remember of
experience, as distinct from what we made it mean.)
There is a whole family of pseudosciences based on fallacious post-hoc
estimation of probability. In this case, an argument is invented with a
pretense of objectivity, when it is clear that the conclusion is
incorporated in the assumptions.
This is not about whether or not there is "intention" behind the
phenomena of life. Rather it is about whether or not functional
complexity beyond some level is a proof of intention. Your argument has,
in fact, been circular.
It's not that I deny intention itself. It is rather that discerning the
purpose of life, the intention, if you will, requires stepping outside
the normal machinery of thought and stepping into direct, unmediated
experience. You will never get there through firm adherence to any
belief. Faith can take you there, but only a faith in reality itself,
which, again, I distinguish from collections of words, crystallized as
meanings we prefer.
Faith in reality, I'll assert, underlies genuine Science.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 28, 2012, at 5:42 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
Once again, I hesistate to respond to you cause that will cause people
to roundly criticize me for starting a long off-topic thread. You bring
up several points that need a response, to set your fallacies straight.
Can you suggest a forum where we can do this? Let me know and I'll show
up.
Otherwise, there is nothing much I am willing to do in this forum.
Jojo
- Original Message ----- From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax"
>
To: ;
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
At 09:11 AM 5/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
I am unsure about your point or what you are asking.
What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your
question?
Of course,there are strong inference. For example, if you find the
presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent
Designer, not Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance mutations.
Random processes never create Information, because information is
"Order", the exact opposite of Randomness.
The conclusion is being assumed. It is easy to demonstrate information
in random output with or without output selection. "Information" is not
defined here, and I suspect that the undisclosed definition again
incorporates the conclusions.
There is order in the non-living, presumably mechanistic, universe, by
any reasonable definition of order. We associate very high levels of
order with life, normally, for life organizes material, it can be one
of the definitions of life.
For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent
sentence requires the input of an Intelligent being.
Easy to demonstrate otherwise. Make a random sequence generator, then
select the output which makes sense. Humans actually do this detection
well, almost too well, sometimes, we will indeed "make sense" of random
combinations. And then people will insist that the sense that they make
from this stuff is "intended," a "code" that proves something or other.
Like that the Torah is from God ("Torah Code") or the Qur'an from Allah
("The Miracle of the Nineteen.")
Gambler's Fallacy is a phenomenon related to this.
If your throw a bunch of Scrabble letters on the ground, the
following 2 sentences have equal chance of occuring.
"There is a God"
"ethresi da Go" -(No, this is not a foreign language.
Th
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
You tell people that they "believe" in something preposterous and you
fear that they will "criticize" you?
The list owner could decide that discussion of evolution was not
useful here. But he hasn't, AFAIK. What was a problem was the
hijacking of a thread on tritium and NiH LENR, and you were not solely
responsible for that. Here, the thread is about "Darwinian Evolution,"
whatever that is.
My own interest is ontology, and how we choose (or fall into) what we
"believe," as distinct from what we experience (and remember of
experience, as distinct from what we made it mean.)
There is a whole family of pseudosciences based on fallacious post-hoc
estimation of probability. In this case, an argument is invented with
a pretense of objectivity, when it is clear that the conclusion is
incorporated in the assumptions.
This is not about whether or not there is "intention" behind the
phenomena of life. Rather it is about whether or not functional
complexity beyond some level is a proof of intention. Your argument
has, in fact, been circular.
It's not that I deny intention itself. It is rather that discerning
the purpose of life, the intention, if you will, requires stepping
outside the normal machinery of thought and stepping into direct,
unmediated experience. You will never get there through firm adherence
to any belief. Faith can take you there, but only a faith in reality
itself, which, again, I distinguish from collections of words,
crystallized as meanings we prefer.
Faith in reality, I'll assert, underlies genuine Science.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 28, 2012, at 5:42 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
Once again, I hesistate to respond to you cause that will cause
people to roundly criticize me for starting a long off-topic
thread. You bring up several points that need a response, to set
your fallacies straight. Can you suggest a forum where we can do
this? Let me know and I'll show up.
Otherwise, there is nothing much I am willing to do in this forum.
Jojo
- Original Message - From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax" >
To: ;
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
At 09:11 AM 5/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
I am unsure about your point or what you are asking.
What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your
question?
Of course,there are strong inference. For example, if you find
the presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for
Intelligent Designer, not Darwinian Evolution based on randon
chance mutations. Random processes never create Information,
because information is "Order", the exact opposite of Randomness.
The conclusion is being assumed. It is easy to demonstrate
information in random output with or without output selection.
"Information" is not defined here, and I suspect that the
undisclosed definition again incorporates the conclusions.
There is order in the non-living, presumably mechanistic, universe,
by any reasonable definition of order. We associate very high
levels of order with life, normally, for life organizes material,
it can be one of the definitions of life.
For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent
sentence requires the input of an Intelligent being.
Easy to demonstrate otherwise. Make a random sequence generator,
then select the output which makes sense. Humans actually do this
detection well, almost too well, sometimes, we will indeed "make
sense" of random combinations. And then people will insist that the
sense that they make from this stuff is "intended," a "code" that
proves something or other. Like that the Torah is from God ("Torah
Code") or the Qur'an from Allah ("The Miracle of the Nineteen.")
Gambler's Fallacy is a phenomenon related to this.
If your throw a bunch of Scrabble letters on the ground, the
following 2 sentences have equal chance of occuring.
"There is a God"
"ethresi da Go" -(No, this is not a foreign language.
This is a random mixture of the same letters above.)
Yes. But if you have a Scrabble set tossed to make random words,
but you have a setup which rejects what is not in a dictionary, the
second set is impossible, it will not be kept. There is *not* an
equal chance as you assume.
The genetic code is not randomly mutated, in the sense you think.
Many mutations would result in copying failure, for starters. Many
more mutations would result in organism failure. In complex
organisms, many more mutations would not be viable. Even more might
be temporarily viable, but would not survive to reproduce. Or might
only last a few generations, either by accident or because of loss
of survivability.
And many mutations are irrelevant, hav
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
Once again, I hesistate to respond to you cause that will cause people to
roundly criticize me for starting a long off-topic thread. You bring up
several points that need a response, to set your fallacies straight. Can
you suggest a forum where we can do this? Let me know and I'll show up.
Otherwise, there is nothing much I am willing to do in this forum.
Jojo
- Original Message -
From: "Abd ul-Rahman Lomax"
To: ;
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
At 09:11 AM 5/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
I am unsure about your point or what you are asking.
What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your question?
Of course,there are strong inference. For example, if you find the
presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent
Designer, not Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance mutations.
Random processes never create Information, because information is "Order",
the exact opposite of Randomness.
The conclusion is being assumed. It is easy to demonstrate information in
random output with or without output selection. "Information" is not
defined here, and I suspect that the undisclosed definition again
incorporates the conclusions.
There is order in the non-living, presumably mechanistic, universe, by any
reasonable definition of order. We associate very high levels of order
with life, normally, for life organizes material, it can be one of the
definitions of life.
For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent sentence
requires the input of an Intelligent being.
Easy to demonstrate otherwise. Make a random sequence generator, then
select the output which makes sense. Humans actually do this detection
well, almost too well, sometimes, we will indeed "make sense" of random
combinations. And then people will insist that the sense that they make
from this stuff is "intended," a "code" that proves something or other.
Like that the Torah is from God ("Torah Code") or the Qur'an from Allah
("The Miracle of the Nineteen.")
Gambler's Fallacy is a phenomenon related to this.
If your throw a bunch of Scrabble letters on the ground, the following
2 sentences have equal chance of occuring.
"There is a God"
"ethresi da Go" -(No, this is not a foreign language. This is
a random mixture of the same letters above.)
Yes. But if you have a Scrabble set tossed to make random words, but you
have a setup which rejects what is not in a dictionary, the second set is
impossible, it will not be kept. There is *not* an equal chance as you
assume.
The genetic code is not randomly mutated, in the sense you think. Many
mutations would result in copying failure, for starters. Many more
mutations would result in organism failure. In complex organisms, many
more mutations would not be viable. Even more might be temporarily viable,
but would not survive to reproduce. Or might only last a few generations,
either by accident or because of loss of survivability.
And many mutations are irrelevant, have no effect on the function of the
DNA, so the DNA behind a particular functional part of an organism is, in
fact, a family of patterns, not a single one.
That "junk DNA" can be mutations waiting to become, through some further
process, something active. It might represent something that was active in
the past but which is no longer active, that mutated out of activity but
caused no damage because any necessary function was also carried
elsewhere.
This is all just how DNA functions. It proves nothing about "creation" one
way or another. What is the real issue here?
What is the difference between the 2 sentences above. Nothing as far as
randon chance is concerned.
The first sentence *might* have been created by random chance and, in
fact, I could demonstrate this if I thought it were important. The key is
that I'd set up an algorithm using random letter selection. "There is a
God" is short enough that I could get this result with fairly little
computer time, and that's why web sites advise more complex passwords!
What you have shown, Jojo, is that your own selection process is not
"random chance." This proves?
It *certainly* does not prove that random chance cannot produce sensible
words, but you seem to think so, which demonstrates what?
Are you familiar with the Torah Code? See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_code
Yet for an Intelligent Entity, there is a huge difference.
Sure. That is, to an Intelligent Entity, which you assume yourself to be,
of limited intelligence. A *huge* difference. Which the intelligent entity
made up. That's what intelligent entities, in fact, do, they make up
meaning. It's a useful process, often. Not always. Ga
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 10:29 PM, Chemical Engineer wrote: > I was thinking more along the lines of Sleestak... > > Humans sometime behave more like the creatures on the show. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Land_of_the_Lost_characters_and_species Indeed they do! I always had a problem with the Lost resolution. T
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
I was thinking more along the lines of Sleestak... Humans sometime behave more like the creatures on the show. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Land_of_the_Lost_characters_and_species On Sunday, May 27, 2012, Terry Blanton wrote: > Well? Silence yields consent? > > :-) > > T > > On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Terry Blanton > > > wrote: > > Everyone should know it was the Elohim. > > > > http://www.salemctr.com/newage/center31.html > > > > T > >
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
Well? Silence yields consent? :-) T On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Terry Blanton wrote: > Everyone should know it was the Elohim. > > http://www.salemctr.com/newage/center31.html > > T
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
Everyone should know it was the Elohim. http://www.salemctr.com/newage/center31.html T
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
At 09:30 AM 5/27/2012, James Bowery wrote: OK, so you don't think you need an experiment. Go fuck yourself. Let's say that Jojo's post failed to inspire James
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
At 09:11 AM 5/27/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
I am unsure about your point or what you are asking.
What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your question?
Of course,there are strong inference. For example, if you find the
presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent
Designer, not Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance
mutations. Random processes never create Information, because
information is "Order", the exact opposite of Randomness.
The conclusion is being assumed. It is easy to demonstrate
information in random output with or without output selection.
"Information" is not defined here, and I suspect that the undisclosed
definition again incorporates the conclusions.
There is order in the non-living, presumably mechanistic, universe,
by any reasonable definition of order. We associate very high levels
of order with life, normally, for life organizes material, it can be
one of the definitions of life.
For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent
sentence requires the input of an Intelligent being.
Easy to demonstrate otherwise. Make a random sequence generator, then
select the output which makes sense. Humans actually do this
detection well, almost too well, sometimes, we will indeed "make
sense" of random combinations. And then people will insist that the
sense that they make from this stuff is "intended," a "code" that
proves something or other. Like that the Torah is from God ("Torah
Code") or the Qur'an from Allah ("The Miracle of the Nineteen.")
Gambler's Fallacy is a phenomenon related to this.
If your throw a bunch of Scrabble letters on the ground, the
following 2 sentences have equal chance of occuring.
"There is a God"
"ethresi da Go" -(No, this is not a foreign
language. This is a random mixture of the same letters above.)
Yes. But if you have a Scrabble set tossed to make random words, but
you have a setup which rejects what is not in a dictionary, the
second set is impossible, it will not be kept. There is *not* an
equal chance as you assume.
The genetic code is not randomly mutated, in the sense you think.
Many mutations would result in copying failure, for starters. Many
more mutations would result in organism failure. In complex
organisms, many more mutations would not be viable. Even more might
be temporarily viable, but would not survive to reproduce. Or might
only last a few generations, either by accident or because of loss of
survivability.
And many mutations are irrelevant, have no effect on the function of
the DNA, so the DNA behind a particular functional part of an
organism is, in fact, a family of patterns, not a single one.
That "junk DNA" can be mutations waiting to become, through some
further process, something active. It might represent something that
was active in the past but which is no longer active, that mutated
out of activity but caused no damage because any necessary function
was also carried elsewhere.
This is all just how DNA functions. It proves nothing about
"creation" one way or another. What is the real issue here?
What is the difference between the 2 sentences above. Nothing as
far as randon chance is concerned.
The first sentence *might* have been created by random chance and, in
fact, I could demonstrate this if I thought it were important. The
key is that I'd set up an algorithm using random letter selection.
"There is a God" is short enough that I could get this result with
fairly little computer time, and that's why web sites advise more
complex passwords!
What you have shown, Jojo, is that your own selection process is not
"random chance." This proves?
It *certainly* does not prove that random chance cannot produce
sensible words, but you seem to think so, which demonstrates what?
Are you familiar with the Torah Code? See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_code
Yet for an Intelligent Entity, there is a huge difference.
Sure. That is, to an Intelligent Entity, which you assume yourself to
be, of limited intelligence. A *huge* difference. Which the
intelligent entity made up. That's what intelligent entities, in
fact, do, they make up meaning. It's a useful process, often. Not
always. Gambler's Fallacy.
What differentiates the 2 sentences? It is Information of course.
That's debatable. What information? What I see in the first sentence
is grammatically correct, but "information" is actually supplied by
the reader. You *say* that the second sentence is not a foreign
language, but that is your *assumption.*
In the end, both sentences are assemblages of letters, and whether or
not they mean something is dependent upon the *reader* -- or reading device.
What is *meant* by "God"? Indeed, what is "meant" by any of the
words, most especially "is"? Is what, is where, is how? All these are
supplied by the reader, in "making sense" of the sentence. You may
say that there is an *intended
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
At 04:17 AM 5/26/2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: There appears to be some interest in this subject, so I will continue discussing it as long as people want to discuss it by responding. Apoligies to Bill in advance if this is inappropriate. What was clearly inappropriate was such a thorough hijacking of the thread. First, let me make something very clear. My goal in brining up this discussion is to try to draw a parallel between what is happening with Hot Fusion and Darwinian Evolution Theory. Maybe, we can begin to understand the hostility towards Cold Fusion and as part of the Scientific Community, begin to rectify it. In Hot Fusion, the science appears to be "Established". There are decades of work associated with it. There appears to be some "established" theories. Hence, when people like Parks, Huzienga and others dismiss Cold Fusion out of hand, they are simply appealing to the "Triumph" of the prevailing theories. In their minds, these theories are well founded and well established. They are, in their territory. The problem was in extending them beyond what was known, and assuming that such extensions were *part of the known theory.* In fact, there were plenty of scientists in 1989-1990 who knew that existing theory did not rule out cold fusion and, in fact, one example of catalyzed cold fusion was known, muon-catalyzed fusion. So why could there not be another? The 1989 DoE review explicitly recognized that the "impossiblity" argument was weak and impossible, itself, to prove. Rather, in 1989, what could be said -- and this was at least somewhat reasonable then -- was that it had not been "conclusively demonstrated" that LENR was real. In the minds of those to whom LENR was a threat, either to their comfort level with the depth of their understanding of what was possible in physics, or more directly to funding for hot fusion projects, this was translated into "bogus." Kind of a leap, eh? And then the color of "bogus" was smeared over all reports considered similar, thus completely bypassing the normal process of scientific inquiry. It was a socio-political phenomenon, and has been covered well by Simon (2002, Undead Science). In Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism thought, once again, there "appears" to be some "established" theories (Albeit a theory you can drive a Mack Truck thru.). Straw man argument, Jojo. In the same vein, people like Jed who dismiss Intelligent Design and Creationism as "quack" science, are just as quick to point out the Darwinian Evolution is "fact" just as Parks would point out that Hot Fusion is "fact" to the exclusion of anything else. You see, the point that I am making is that without realizing it, Jed has the same close-minded tendencies as Parks do. The straw man is "Darwinian Evolution." What's that? By name, it is referred to a person and to ideas expressed in the 19th century. Why doesn't Jed study the principles of Irreducible Complexity, or Specified Complexity, or Biological Chirality, or Abiogenesis, or Improbabality or DNA Information, or Cell complexity, or the Bacterial Flagellum etc. These are legitimate fields of science where there are published papers. Because he's not interested, my guess. Why should he be? For me, I'll ask "what is the *experimental evidence"? The stories we tell about our experience are not evidence. Theories, *all of them* are stories. They are useful to the extent that they empower us to predict the consequences of actions. But there is another realm of theory, theory that "explains" the past. That can be useful as a mnemonic device, that's about it. Such theories can collapse very complex sets of data into something simple for memory to grasp, and this is useful, as well, as a possible way to predict new discovery about the past, and perhaps, sometimes, to predict the results of controlled experiment; but controlled experiment in the field you are addressing, Jaro, is not so easy to come by. What happens with this kind of theory is that people line up based on whether they like the implications of the theory or don't. People who take the concept of divine creation as if it were some kind of scientific principle, in contradiction with some sort of mechanistic concept of evolution that they imagine -- or know -- that others hold, are offended by theories of evolution. But, in fact, they made up the contradiction. And, I'll assert, it has nothing to do with real faith. It's more along the lines of imagining a splinter in the eyes of others, while ignoring the beam in one's own. And "scientists" who use theories of evolution as if they were some sort of refutation of creation stories are simply doing the same thing on the other side, making up a story of contradiction. That has nothing to do with science. I suspect that if I meet Jed in person, and hand him a math paper by Stephen Myers on Specified Complexity and Improbability, he would let that paper d
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
I agree with Brad, JoJo is free to believe in whatever he wants. James owes JoJo an apology. 2012/5/27 ecat builder > On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:54 AM, James Bowery wrote: > > Jojo, just so you don't feel too bad, I would consider it to be morally > > justifiable to draw and quarter the editors of Nature magazine that > > suppressed replication of cold fusion. Your dedication to theory over > > experiment is merely worthy of contempt. > > > James, > > So telling Jojo to "Go fuck yourself" is also "morally justified" in > your view? I am a little late to read this thread, but that comment > seems egregiously uncivil. An apology is in order. > > Jojo, I wish you all the best with your experiments. Keep us posted. > > - Brad > > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:54 AM, James Bowery wrote: > Jojo, just so you don't feel too bad, I would consider it to be morally > justifiable to draw and quarter the editors of Nature magazine that > suppressed replication of cold fusion. Your dedication to theory over > experiment is merely worthy of contempt. > James, So telling Jojo to "Go fuck yourself" is also "morally justified" in your view? I am a little late to read this thread, but that comment seems egregiously uncivil. An apology is in order. Jojo, I wish you all the best with your experiments. Keep us posted. - Brad
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
Actually, Intelligent Design and Darwinian Evolution are not mutually exclusive. There is a theory called "Theistic Evolution" that posits an Intelligent Being starting the process of Darwinian Evolution. IMO, it is a sad attempt at compromise. Theistic Evolution would solve one major problem of Darwinian Evolution - the problem of Abiogenesis. Where and how did the first life get started. Currently Darwinian Evolutionist are having great great difficulty in explaining biogenesis. Jojo I am not a Theistic Evolutionist. - Original Message - From: Peter Gluck To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 12:54 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) or or means simply that Darwinism and ID cannot be both true in the same time and even any intermediate or combined solution is not possible. Just from curiosity are you a Bible literalist as my friend G. including Creation and Noah's Ark. You can write directly to me< I respect your faith. Peter On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: As I indicated before, I hesitated in posting about the fallacies of Darwinian Evolution in this forum as I find this forum extremely useful and don't want to clutter it with other subjects. There is no need to ask me to stop as I have stopped and said I will only respond to any question posted about it. Besides, the point that I wanted to make was clearly illustrated. While, I respect and admire you, I wished you had been more unbiased. If I being an adherent of Intelligent Design and beleiver were to violate the rules of civility of this forum and suggested to James to contort and perform that unmanageable sexual act, I would be roundly criticized and asked to leave, and no doubt by you. Am I not right? Where is the unbiased, moral outrage from you regarding the blatant violation of the rules of civility of this forum? Demonstrate to me that you can be level-headed and demand an apology from James and my admiration meter for you will jump. While an apology from James is not required for me to refrain from discussing this topic, the lack of moral outrage from members regarding its absence will greatly diminish my respect for members of this forum and further serve to reinforce my assessment that members here are not really as open-minded as they claim to be. Jojo BTW, what do you mean by OR/OR dispute? - Original Message - From: Peter Gluck To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 12:00 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) Dear Jojo, I would friendly suggest you to you to stop this discussion from the simple reason that the analogy is not valid. Hot Fusion and Cold Fusion (LENR) are both real and possible, alternative, in a way complementary solutions. Evolution and Intelligent Project are opposites,mutually exclusive- and we (you too) can find hundreds of forums to discuss this subject ad infinitum. I am reading Skeptic Magazine but my good friend G. who is a famous baptist preacher keeps me informed with ID. I think this was the first time this OR/OR dispute was mentioned on this forum. But the analogy will not help. Peter On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: OH my! What is your major malfunction? Are you experiencing major cognitive dissonance? The Darwinian Evolution Religion you've pledge yourself to is not as factual as you thought it was? Did I just hit a central nerve? I thought we were discussing with civility? I guess I just pissed you off too much with facts and logic. OK. Whatever. Jojo PS. Folks, if James' response does not illutrate my point enough, nothing will. Darwinian Evolution is a religion to its adherents. When someone brings up a good point of logic, they experience major cognitive dissonance and react like this. Parks experiences this everytime someone brings up evidence for Cold Fusion. Darwinists experience this when they can not answer a valid criticism of its Darwinian religion. The parallel has been clearly illustrated. My point is proven. - Original Message - From: James Bowery To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:30 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) OK, so you don't think you need an experiment. Go fuck yourself. On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: I am unsure about your point or what you are asking. What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your question? Of course,there are strong inference. For example, if you find the pres
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
Yes, I am a Bible Literalist. Not because I forced myself to be that; but
because the evidence I have studied points in that direction.
Science is about the search for the Truth. It is not about the religion of
Naturalistic Methodologism. Science must consider all possible causes, not
just causes we can smell, see, hear, taste and touch. The search for the truth
must be allowed to reach its logical conclusion. If the evidence points to a
naturalistic solution, so be it. On the other hand, If the evidence points to
a metaphysical solution, then it must not be excluded.
BTW, this might further cause Cognitive Dissonance for some people here, but
realize that the patriach of Modern Science was a Believer and Bible
Literalist. Isaac Newton wrote thousands of pages of Bible commentary.
Jojo
- Original Message -
From: Peter Gluck
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 12:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
or or means simply that Darwinism and ID cannot be both true in the same time
and even any intermediate or combined solution is not possible. Just from
curiosity are you a Bible literalist as my friend G. including Creation and
Noah's Ark. You can write directly to me< I respect your faith.
Peter
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
As I indicated before, I hesitated in posting about the fallacies of
Darwinian Evolution in this forum as I find this forum extremely useful and
don't want to clutter it with other subjects. There is no need to ask me to
stop as I have stopped and said I will only respond to any question posted
about it.
Besides, the point that I wanted to make was clearly illustrated.
While, I respect and admire you, I wished you had been more unbiased. If I
being an adherent of Intelligent Design and beleiver were to violate the rules
of civility of this forum and suggested to James to contort and perform that
unmanageable sexual act, I would be roundly criticized and asked to leave, and
no doubt by you. Am I not right?
Where is the unbiased, moral outrage from you regarding the blatant
violation of the rules of civility of this forum?
Demonstrate to me that you can be level-headed and demand an apology from
James and my admiration meter for you will jump.
While an apology from James is not required for me to refrain from
discussing this topic, the lack of moral outrage from members regarding its
absence will greatly diminish my respect for members of this forum and further
serve to reinforce my assessment that members here are not really as
open-minded as they claim to be.
Jojo
BTW, what do you mean by OR/OR dispute?
- Original Message -
From: Peter Gluck
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
Dear Jojo,
I would friendly suggest you to you to stop this discussion from the
simple reason that
the analogy is not valid.
Hot Fusion and Cold Fusion (LENR) are both real and possible,
alternative, in a way complementary solutions.
Evolution and Intelligent Project are opposites,mutually exclusive- and
we (you too)
can find hundreds of forums to discuss this subject ad infinitum. I am
reading Skeptic Magazine but my good friend G. who is a famous baptist preacher
keeps me informed with ID.
I think this was the first time this OR/OR dispute
was mentioned on this forum. But the analogy will not help.
Peter
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
OH my! What is your major malfunction? Are you experiencing major
cognitive dissonance? The Darwinian Evolution Religion you've pledge yourself
to is not as factual as you thought it was? Did I just hit a central nerve?
I thought we were discussing with civility? I guess I just pissed you off too
much with facts and logic.
OK. Whatever.
Jojo
PS. Folks, if James' response does not illutrate my point enough,
nothing will. Darwinian Evolution is a religion to its adherents. When
someone brings up a good point of logic, they experience major cognitive
dissonance and react like this.
Parks experiences this everytime someone brings up evidence for Cold
Fusion. Darwinists experience this when they can not answer a valid criticism
of its Darwinian religion.
The parallel has been clearly illustrated. My point is proven.
- Original Message -
From: James Bowery
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
OK, so you don't think you need an experiment.
Go fuck yourself.
On Sun, May 27, 2012
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
I find your assesment of me rather amusing.
So I am more theory than experiment? OK, whatever.
This will be my last response to you. You're welcome to have the last word.
Jojo
- Original Message -
From: James Bowery
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 12:54 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
Jojo, just so you don't feel too bad, I would consider it to be morally
justifiable to draw and quarter the editors of Nature magazine that suppressed
replication of cold fusion. Your dedication to theory over experiment is
merely worthy of contempt.
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
Why on Earth would you think that I think experiments are unneccesary? I
am spending a small fortune right now conducting experiments. And that my
friend is more than what you are currently doing or prepared to do.
You know, one thing is clear. Your hostility towards me is not stemming
from any Cold Fusion experiments I am doing or for any other post I've made,
but simply because I indicated I am a believer and I brought up some good
points that is causing you a tizzy spell.
Jojo
- Original Message -
From: James Bowery
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 12:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
No, Jojo has no business in this forum for the simple reason that he
thinks experiments are unnecessary to science. Nature magazine, too, decided
that experiments were unnecessary when the British editor deferred to the US
editor regarding Oriani's replication of cold fusion, and the US editor
rejected the paper, because it went against prevailing theory.
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Peter Gluck
wrote:
Dear Jojo,
I would friendly suggest you to you to stop this discussion from the
simple reason that
the analogy is not valid.
Hot Fusion and Cold Fusion (LENR) are both real and possible,
alternative, in a way complementary solutions.
Evolution and Intelligent Project are opposites,mutually exclusive- and
we (you too)
can find hundreds of forums to discuss this subject ad infinitum. I am
reading Skeptic Magazine but my good friend G. who is a famous baptist preacher
keeps me informed with ID.
I think this was the first time this OR/OR dispute
was mentioned on this forum. But the analogy will not help.
Peter
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
OH my! What is your major malfunction? Are you experiencing major
cognitive dissonance? The Darwinian Evolution Religion you've pledge yourself
to is not as factual as you thought it was? Did I just hit a central nerve?
I thought we were discussing with civility? I guess I just pissed you off too
much with facts and logic.
OK. Whatever.
Jojo
PS. Folks, if James' response does not illutrate my point enough,
nothing will. Darwinian Evolution is a religion to its adherents. When
someone brings up a good point of logic, they experience major cognitive
dissonance and react like this.
Parks experiences this everytime someone brings up evidence for Cold
Fusion. Darwinists experience this when they can not answer a valid criticism
of its Darwinian religion.
The parallel has been clearly illustrated. My point is proven.
- Original Message -
From: James Bowery
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
OK, so you don't think you need an experiment.
Go fuck yourself.
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jojo Jaro
wrote:
I am unsure about your point or what you are asking.
What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your
question?
Of course,there are strong inference. For example, if you find
the presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent
Designer, not Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance mutations. Random
processes never create Information, because information is "Order", the exact
opposite of Randomness.
For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent
sentence requires the input of an Intelligent being. If your throw a bunch of
Scrabble letters on the ground, the following 2 sentences have equal chance of
occuring.
"There is a God"
"ethresi da Go" -(No, this is not a foreign language.
This is a random mixture of the same letters above.)
What is the difference between the 2 sentences above. Nothing as
far as randon chan
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
Jojo, just so you don't feel too bad, I would consider it to be morally justifiable to draw and quarter the editors of Nature magazine that suppressed replication of cold fusion. Your dedication to theory over experiment is merely worthy of contempt. On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > ** > Why on Earth would you think that I think experiments are unneccesary? I > am spending a small fortune right now conducting experiments. And that my > friend is more than what you are currently doing or prepared to do. > > You know, one thing is clear. Your hostility towards me is not stemming > from any Cold Fusion experiments I am doing or for any other post I've > made, but simply because I indicated I am a believer and I brought up some > good points that is causing you a tizzy spell. > > > > Jojo > > > > > > - Original Message - > *From:* James Bowery > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Monday, May 28, 2012 12:06 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) > > No, Jojo has no business in this forum for the simple reason that he > thinks experiments are unnecessary to science. Nature magazine, too, > decided that experiments were unnecessary when the British editor deferred > to the US editor regarding Oriani's replication of cold fusion, and the US > editor rejected the paper, because it went against prevailing theory. > > On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: > >> Dear Jojo, >> >> I would friendly suggest you to you to stop this discussion from the >> simple reason that >> the analogy is not valid. >> Hot Fusion and Cold Fusion (LENR) are both real and possible, >> alternative, in a way complementary solutions. >> Evolution and Intelligent Project are opposites,mutually exclusive- and >> we (you too) >> can find hundreds of forums to discuss this subject ad infinitum. I am >> reading Skeptic Magazine but my good friend G. who is a famous baptist >> preacher keeps me informed with ID. >> I think this was the first time this OR/OR dispute >> was mentioned on this forum. But the analogy will not help. >> >> Peter >> >> >> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: >> >>> ** >>> OH my! What is your major malfunction? Are you experiencing major >>> cognitive dissonance? The Darwinian Evolution Religion you've pledge >>> yourself to is not as factual as you thought it was? Did I just hit a >>> central nerve? I thought we were discussing with civility? I guess I just >>> pissed you off too much with facts and logic. >>> >>> OK. Whatever. >>> >>> Jojo >>> >>> >>> PS. Folks, if James' response does not illutrate my point enough, >>> nothing will. Darwinian Evolution is a religion to its adherents. When >>> someone brings up a good point of logic, they experience major cognitive >>> dissonance and react like this. >>> >>> Parks experiences this everytime someone brings up evidence for Cold >>> Fusion. Darwinists experience this when they can not answer a valid >>> criticism of its Darwinian religion. >>> >>> The parallel has been clearly illustrated. My point is proven. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> *From:* James Bowery >>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >>> *Sent:* Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:30 PM >>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) >>> >>> OK, so you don't think you need an experiment. >>> >>> Go fuck yourself. >>> >>> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: >>> >>>> ** >>>> I am unsure about your point or what you are asking. >>>> >>>> What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your question? >>>> >>>> Of course,there are strong inference. For example, if you find the >>>> presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent >>>> Designer, not Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance mutations. Random >>>> processes never create Information, because information is "Order", the >>>> exact opposite of Randomness. >>>> >>>> For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent sentence >>>> requires the input of an Intelligent being. If your throw a bunch of >>>> Scrabble letters on the ground, the following 2 sentences have equal ch
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
or or means simply that Darwinism and ID cannot be both true in the same time and even any intermediate or combined solution is not possible. Just from curiosity are you a Bible literalist as my friend G. including Creation and Noah's Ark. You can write directly to me< I respect your faith. Peter On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 7:24 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > ** > As I indicated before, I hesitated in posting about the fallacies of > Darwinian Evolution in this forum as I find this forum extremely useful and > don't want to clutter it with other subjects. There is no need to ask me > to stop as I have stopped and said I will only respond to any question > posted about it. > > Besides, the point that I wanted to make was clearly illustrated. > > While, I respect and admire you, I wished you had been more unbiased. If > I being an adherent of Intelligent Design and beleiver were to violate the > rules of civility of this forum and suggested to James to contort and > perform that unmanageable sexual act, I would be roundly criticized and > asked to leave, and no doubt by you. Am I not right? > > Where is the unbiased, moral outrage from you regarding the blatant > violation of the rules of civility of this forum? > > Demonstrate to me that you can be level-headed and demand an apology from > James and my admiration meter for you will jump. > > While an apology from James is not required for me to refrain from > discussing this topic, the lack of moral outrage from members regarding its > absence will greatly diminish my respect for members of this forum and > further serve to reinforce my assessment that members here are not really > as open-minded as they claim to be. > > > > > Jojo > > > > BTW, what do you mean by OR/OR dispute? > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Peter Gluck > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Monday, May 28, 2012 12:00 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) > > Dear Jojo, > > I would friendly suggest you to you to stop this discussion from the > simple reason that > the analogy is not valid. > Hot Fusion and Cold Fusion (LENR) are both real and possible, alternative, > in a way complementary solutions. > Evolution and Intelligent Project are opposites,mutually exclusive- and we > (you too) > can find hundreds of forums to discuss this subject ad infinitum. I am > reading Skeptic Magazine but my good friend G. who is a famous baptist > preacher keeps me informed with ID. > I think this was the first time this OR/OR dispute > was mentioned on this forum. But the analogy will not help. > > Peter > > > On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > >> ** >> OH my! What is your major malfunction? Are you experiencing major >> cognitive dissonance? The Darwinian Evolution Religion you've pledge >> yourself to is not as factual as you thought it was? Did I just hit a >> central nerve? I thought we were discussing with civility? I guess I just >> pissed you off too much with facts and logic. >> >> OK. Whatever. >> >> Jojo >> >> >> PS. Folks, if James' response does not illutrate my point enough, >> nothing will. Darwinian Evolution is a religion to its adherents. When >> someone brings up a good point of logic, they experience major cognitive >> dissonance and react like this. >> >> Parks experiences this everytime someone brings up evidence for Cold >> Fusion. Darwinists experience this when they can not answer a valid >> criticism of its Darwinian religion. >> >> The parallel has been clearly illustrated. My point is proven. >> >> >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> *From:* James Bowery >> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >> *Sent:* Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:30 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) >> >> OK, so you don't think you need an experiment. >> >> Go fuck yourself. >> >> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: >> >>> ** >>> I am unsure about your point or what you are asking. >>> >>> What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your question? >>> >>> Of course,there are strong inference. For example, if you find the >>> presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent >>> Designer, not Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance mutations. Random >>> processes never create Information, because information is "Order", the >>> exact opposite of Randomness. >>> >>> For inst
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
Guys, Just to muddy things some more: The SPAWAR presentation I posted a link to this morning mentioned that energy output measurements implied that both "hot" and "cold/LENR" type reactions might be taking place concurrently so the reactions may not be mutually exclusive... Also, based upon my experience, intelligence is relative and effected by environment. On Sunday, May 27, 2012, Peter Gluck wrote: > Dear Jojo, > > I would friendly suggest you to you to stop this discussion from the > simple reason that > the analogy is not valid. > Hot Fusion and Cold Fusion (LENR) are both real and possible, alternative, > in a way complementary solutions. > Evolution and Intelligent Project are opposites,mutually exclusive- and we > (you too) > can find hundreds of forums to discuss this subject ad infinitum. I am > reading Skeptic Magazine but my good friend G. who is a famous baptist > preacher keeps me informed with ID. > I think this was the first time this OR/OR dispute > was mentioned on this forum. But the analogy will not help. > > Peter > > > On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > > ** > OH my! What is your major malfunction? Are you experiencing major > cognitive dissonance? The Darwinian Evolution Religion you've pledge > yourself to is not as factual as you thought it was? Did I just hit a > central nerve? I thought we were discussing with civility? I guess I just > pissed you off too much with facts and logic. > > OK. Whatever. > > Jojo > > > PS. Folks, if James' response does not illutrate my point enough, nothing > will. Darwinian Evolution is a religion to its adherents. When someone > brings up a good point of logic, they experience major cognitive dissonance > and react like this. > > Parks experiences this everytime someone brings up evidence for Cold > Fusion. Darwinists experience this when they can not answer a valid > criticism of its Darwinian religion. > > The parallel has been clearly illustrated. My point is proven. > > > > > > ----- Original Message - > *From:* James Bowery > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:30 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) > > OK, so you don't think you need an experiment. > > Go fuck yourself. > > On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > > ** > I am unsure about your point or what you are asking. > > What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your question? > > Of course,there are strong inference. For example, if you find the > presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent > Designer, not Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance mutations. Random > processes never create Information, because information is "Order", the > exact opposite of Randomness. > > For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent sentence > requires the input of an Intelligent being. If your throw a bunch of > Scrabble letters on the ground, the following 2 sentences have equal chance > of occuring. > > "There is a God" > > "ethresi da Go" -(No, this is not a foreign language. This is > a random mixture of the same letters above.) > > > What is the difference between the 2 sentences above. Nothing as far as > randon chance is concerned. Yet for an Intelligent Entity, there is a huge > difference. What differentiates the 2 sentences? It is Information of > course. There is information in the first sentence that conveys an idea? > And Ideas are the purvue of Intelligent Beings. > > Now, do this with 4 letters and create a sentence 600,000 letter > > -- > Dr. Peter Gluck > Cluj, Romania > http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com > >
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
I think you missed the point.
The first sentence is equally a jumble of letters as the second. But what
makes the first different. It is because it contains Information assigned to
its specific arrangement. And where did this information get its "meaning".
Isn't it from the same Intelligent Beings who assigned meaning to that specific
arrangement? The same Intelligent Beings who came up with the syntactic,
semantic and grammtical constraints and rules.
And what is the difference between your 2 year old from your 9 year old. Isn't
it that the latter has more "Intelligence"?
My point is, there are patterns we can see and we can immediately perceive that
it contains information and hence an Intelligent being was behind it. When we
look at our DNA coding, it is clear that the arrangement is not just random.
It was arranged specifically to contain Information, that will code for genes,
proteins, etc. When we look at such a pattern, there can only be one logical
conclusion. There is an Intelligent Designer behind that pattern. That is all
the concept of Intelligent Design is saying. It says nothing about a Christian
God.
Jojo
- Original Message -
From: Chemical Engineer
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
Jojo,
I thought scrabble was a word game not a sentence game as there are no spaces.
You say the chances are aqual for the tiles results. I would think the
chances of the tiles coming up with a non grammatically correct jumble of
letters would be much higher than meeting all the constraints of our chosen
english language since there are a limited number of results that meet that
criteria using your available letters.
Also, my 9 year old, with the same DNA at age 2 would most likely arrange
nonsense while at 9 probably something closer to your proof of intelligent
design.
BTW I do not have a strong enough belief in either theory.
On Sunday, May 27, 2012, Jojo Jaro wrote:
OH my! What is your major malfunction? Are you experiencing major
cognitive dissonance? The Darwinian Evolution Religion you've pledge yourself
to is not as factual as you thought it was? Did I just hit a central nerve?
I thought we were discussing with civility? I guess I just pissed you off too
much with facts and logic.
OK. Whatever.
Jojo
PS. Folks, if James' response does not illutrate my point enough, nothing
will. Darwinian Evolution is a religion to its adherents. When someone brings
up a good point of logic, they experience major cognitive dissonance and react
like this.
Parks experiences this everytime someone brings up evidence for Cold
Fusion. Darwinists experience this when they can not answer a valid criticism
of its Darwinian religion.
The parallel has been clearly illustrated. My point is proven.
- Original Message -
From: James Bowery
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
OK, so you don't think you need an experiment.
Go fuck yourself.
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
I am unsure about your point or what you are asking.
What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your question?
Of course,there are strong inference. For example, if you find the
presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent Designer,
not Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance mutations. Random processes
never create Information, because information is "Order", the exact opposite of
Randomness.
For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent sentence
requires the input of an Intelligent being. If your throw a bunch of Scrabble
letters on the ground, the following 2 sentences have equal chance of occuring.
"There is a God"
"ethresi da Go" -(No, this is not a foreign language. This
is a random mixture of the same letters above.)
What is the difference between the 2 sentences above. Nothing as far
as randon chance is concerned. Yet for an Intelligent Entity, there is a huge
difference. What differentiates the 2 sentences? It is Information of course.
There is information in the first sentence that conveys an idea? And Ideas
are the purvue of Intelligent Beings.
Now, do this with 4 letters and create a sentence 600,000 letters long;
you might begin to understand the complexity and the remarkable presence of
Information in our DNA.
Jojo
- Original Message -
From: James Bowery
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 9:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwin
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
In my opinion the nasty comments directed toward Jojo are not acceptable. His beliefs may be in opposition to most of the members of the group but he is entitled to have them none the less. Surely we can discuss issues such as this without resorting to bad form. Jojo, it would be better for you to move discussions of that nature to other forums and concentrate your talents toward LENR while posting here. Thanks. Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro To: vortex-l Sent: Sun, May 27, 2012 12:35 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) Why on Earth would you think that I think experiments are unneccesary? I am spending a small fortune right now conducting experiments. And that my friend is more than what you are currently doing or prepared to do. You know, one thing is clear. Your hostility towards me is not stemming from any Cold Fusion experiments I am doing or for any other post I've made, but simply because I indicated I am a believer and I brought up some good points that is causing you a tizzy spell. Jojo - Original Message - From: James Bowery To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 12:06 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) No, Jojo has no business in this forum for the simple reason that he thinks experiments are unnecessary to science. Nature magazine, too, decided that experiments were unnecessary when the British editor deferred to the US editor regarding Oriani's replication of cold fusion, and the US editor rejected the paper, because it went against prevailing theory. On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: Dear Jojo, I would friendly suggest you to you to stop this discussion from the simple reason that the analogy is not valid. Hot Fusion and Cold Fusion (LENR) are both real and possible, alternative, in a way complementary solutions. Evolution and Intelligent Project are opposites,mutually exclusive- and we (you too) can find hundreds of forums to discuss this subject ad infinitum. I am reading Skeptic Magazine but my good friend G. who is a famous baptist preacher keeps me informed with ID. I think this was the first time this OR/OR dispute was mentioned on this forum. But the analogy will not help. Peter On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: OH my! What is your major malfunction? Are you experiencing major cognitive dissonance? The Darwinian Evolution Religion you've pledge yourself to is not as factual as you thought it was? Did I just hit a central nerve? I thought we were discussing with civility? I guess I just pissed you off too much with facts and logic. OK. Whatever. Jojo PS. Folks, if James' response does not illutrate my point enough, nothing will. Darwinian Evolution is a religion to its adherents. When someone brings up a good point of logic, they experience major cognitive dissonance and react like this. Parks experiences this everytime someone brings up evidence for Cold Fusion. Darwinists experience this when they can not answer a valid criticism of its Darwinian religion. The parallel has been clearly illustrated. My point is proven. - Original Message - From: James Bowery To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:30 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) OK, so you don't think you need an experiment. Go fuck yourself. On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: I am unsure about your point or what you are asking. What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your question? Of course,there are strong inference. For example, if you find the presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent Designer, not Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance mutations. Random processes never create Information, because information is "Order", the exact opposite of Randomness. For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent sentence requires the input of an Intelligent being. If your throw a bunch of Scrabble letters on the ground, the following 2 sentences have equal chance of occuring. "There is a God" "ethresi da Go" -(No, this is not a foreign language. This is a random mixture of the same letters above.) What is the difference between the 2 sentences above. Nothing as far as randon chance is concerned. Yet for an Intelligent Entity, there is a huge difference. What differentiates the 2 sentences? It is Information of course. There is information in the first sentence that conveys an idea? And Ideas are the purvue of Intelligent Beings. Now, do this with 4 letters and create a sentence 600,000 letters long; you might begin to understand the complexity and the remarkable presence of Information in our DNA. Jojo - O
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
Why on Earth would you think that I think experiments are unneccesary? I am
spending a small fortune right now conducting experiments. And that my friend
is more than what you are currently doing or prepared to do.
You know, one thing is clear. Your hostility towards me is not stemming from
any Cold Fusion experiments I am doing or for any other post I've made, but
simply because I indicated I am a believer and I brought up some good points
that is causing you a tizzy spell.
Jojo
- Original Message -
From: James Bowery
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 12:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
No, Jojo has no business in this forum for the simple reason that he thinks
experiments are unnecessary to science. Nature magazine, too, decided that
experiments were unnecessary when the British editor deferred to the US editor
regarding Oriani's replication of cold fusion, and the US editor rejected the
paper, because it went against prevailing theory.
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Peter Gluck wrote:
Dear Jojo,
I would friendly suggest you to you to stop this discussion from the simple
reason that
the analogy is not valid.
Hot Fusion and Cold Fusion (LENR) are both real and possible, alternative,
in a way complementary solutions.
Evolution and Intelligent Project are opposites,mutually exclusive- and we
(you too)
can find hundreds of forums to discuss this subject ad infinitum. I am
reading Skeptic Magazine but my good friend G. who is a famous baptist preacher
keeps me informed with ID.
I think this was the first time this OR/OR dispute
was mentioned on this forum. But the analogy will not help.
Peter
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
OH my! What is your major malfunction? Are you experiencing major
cognitive dissonance? The Darwinian Evolution Religion you've pledge yourself
to is not as factual as you thought it was? Did I just hit a central nerve?
I thought we were discussing with civility? I guess I just pissed you off too
much with facts and logic.
OK. Whatever.
Jojo
PS. Folks, if James' response does not illutrate my point enough,
nothing will. Darwinian Evolution is a religion to its adherents. When
someone brings up a good point of logic, they experience major cognitive
dissonance and react like this.
Parks experiences this everytime someone brings up evidence for Cold
Fusion. Darwinists experience this when they can not answer a valid criticism
of its Darwinian religion.
The parallel has been clearly illustrated. My point is proven.
- Original Message -
From: James Bowery
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
OK, so you don't think you need an experiment.
Go fuck yourself.
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
I am unsure about your point or what you are asking.
What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your
question?
Of course,there are strong inference. For example, if you find the
presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent Designer,
not Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance mutations. Random processes
never create Information, because information is "Order", the exact opposite of
Randomness.
For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent
sentence requires the input of an Intelligent being. If your throw a bunch of
Scrabble letters on the ground, the following 2 sentences have equal chance of
occuring.
"There is a God"
"ethresi da Go" -(No, this is not a foreign language.
This is a random mixture of the same letters above.)
What is the difference between the 2 sentences above. Nothing as far
as randon chance is concerned. Yet for an Intelligent Entity, there is a huge
difference. What differentiates the 2 sentences? It is Information of course.
There is information in the first sentence that conveys an idea? And Ideas
are the purvue of Intelligent Beings.
Now, do this with 4 letters and create a sentence 600,000 letters
long; you might begin to understand the complexity and the remarkable presence
of Information in our DNA.
Jojo
- Original Message -
From: James Bowery
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 9:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
No. I'm talking about the scientific technique of strong
inference.
In strong inference you are not simply testing a hypothesis.
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
As I indicated before, I hesitated in posting about the fallacies of Darwinian
Evolution in this forum as I find this forum extremely useful and don't want to
clutter it with other subjects. There is no need to ask me to stop as I have
stopped and said I will only respond to any question posted about it.
Besides, the point that I wanted to make was clearly illustrated.
While, I respect and admire you, I wished you had been more unbiased. If I
being an adherent of Intelligent Design and beleiver were to violate the rules
of civility of this forum and suggested to James to contort and perform that
unmanageable sexual act, I would be roundly criticized and asked to leave, and
no doubt by you. Am I not right?
Where is the unbiased, moral outrage from you regarding the blatant violation
of the rules of civility of this forum?
Demonstrate to me that you can be level-headed and demand an apology from James
and my admiration meter for you will jump.
While an apology from James is not required for me to refrain from discussing
this topic, the lack of moral outrage from members regarding its absence will
greatly diminish my respect for members of this forum and further serve to
reinforce my assessment that members here are not really as open-minded as they
claim to be.
Jojo
BTW, what do you mean by OR/OR dispute?
- Original Message -
From: Peter Gluck
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2012 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
Dear Jojo,
I would friendly suggest you to you to stop this discussion from the simple
reason that
the analogy is not valid.
Hot Fusion and Cold Fusion (LENR) are both real and possible, alternative, in
a way complementary solutions.
Evolution and Intelligent Project are opposites,mutually exclusive- and we
(you too)
can find hundreds of forums to discuss this subject ad infinitum. I am
reading Skeptic Magazine but my good friend G. who is a famous baptist preacher
keeps me informed with ID.
I think this was the first time this OR/OR dispute
was mentioned on this forum. But the analogy will not help.
Peter
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
OH my! What is your major malfunction? Are you experiencing major
cognitive dissonance? The Darwinian Evolution Religion you've pledge yourself
to is not as factual as you thought it was? Did I just hit a central nerve?
I thought we were discussing with civility? I guess I just pissed you off too
much with facts and logic.
OK. Whatever.
Jojo
PS. Folks, if James' response does not illutrate my point enough, nothing
will. Darwinian Evolution is a religion to its adherents. When someone brings
up a good point of logic, they experience major cognitive dissonance and react
like this.
Parks experiences this everytime someone brings up evidence for Cold
Fusion. Darwinists experience this when they can not answer a valid criticism
of its Darwinian religion.
The parallel has been clearly illustrated. My point is proven.
- Original Message -
From: James Bowery
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
OK, so you don't think you need an experiment.
Go fuck yourself.
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
I am unsure about your point or what you are asking.
What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your question?
Of course,there are strong inference. For example, if you find the
presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent Designer,
not Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance mutations. Random processes
never create Information, because information is "Order", the exact opposite of
Randomness.
For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent sentence
requires the input of an Intelligent being. If your throw a bunch of Scrabble
letters on the ground, the following 2 sentences have equal chance of occuring.
"There is a God"
"ethresi da Go" -(No, this is not a foreign language. This
is a random mixture of the same letters above.)
What is the difference between the 2 sentences above. Nothing as far
as randon chance is concerned. Yet for an Intelligent Entity, there is a huge
difference. What differentiates the 2 sentences? It is Information of course.
There is information in the first sentence that conveys an idea? And Ideas
are the purvue of Intelligent Beings.
Now, do this with 4 letters and create a sentence 600,000 letters long;
you might begin to understand the complexity and the remarkable presence of
Information in our DNA.
Jojo
- Original Message -
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
Jojo, I thought scrabble was a word game not a sentence game as there are no spaces. You say the chances are aqual for the tiles results. I would think the chances of the tiles coming up with a non grammatically correct jumble of letters would be much higher than meeting all the constraints of our chosen english language since there are a limited number of results that meet that criteria using your available letters. Also, my 9 year old, with the same DNA at age 2 would most likely arrange nonsense while at 9 probably something closer to your proof of intelligent design. BTW I do not have a strong enough belief in either theory. On Sunday, May 27, 2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: > ** > OH my! What is your major malfunction? Are you experiencing major > cognitive dissonance? The Darwinian Evolution Religion you've pledge > yourself to is not as factual as you thought it was? Did I just hit a > central nerve? I thought we were discussing with civility? I guess I just > pissed you off too much with facts and logic. > > OK. Whatever. > > Jojo > > > PS. Folks, if James' response does not illutrate my point enough, nothing > will. Darwinian Evolution is a religion to its adherents. When someone > brings up a good point of logic, they experience major cognitive dissonance > and react like this. > > Parks experiences this everytime someone brings up evidence for Cold > Fusion. Darwinists experience this when they can not answer a valid > criticism of its Darwinian religion. > > The parallel has been clearly illustrated. My point is proven. > > > > > > - Original Message - > *From:* James Bowery > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com 'vortex-l@eskimo.com');> > *Sent:* Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:30 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) > > OK, so you don't think you need an experiment. > > Go fuck yourself. > > On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > > ** > I am unsure about your point or what you are asking. > > What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your question? > > Of course,there are strong inference. For example, if you find the > presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent > Designer, not Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance mutations. Random > processes never create Information, because information is "Order", the > exact opposite of Randomness. > > For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent sentence > requires the input of an Intelligent being. If your throw a bunch of > Scrabble letters on the ground, the following 2 sentences have equal chance > of occuring. > > "There is a God" > > "ethresi da Go" -(No, this is not a foreign language. This is > a random mixture of the same letters above.) > > > What is the difference between the 2 sentences above. Nothing as far as > randon chance is concerned. Yet for an Intelligent Entity, there is a huge > difference. What differentiates the 2 sentences? It is Information of > course. There is information in the first sentence that conveys an idea? > And Ideas are the purvue of Intelligent Beings. > > Now, do this with 4 letters and create a sentence 600,000 letters long; > you might begin to understand the complexity and the remarkable presence of > Information in our DNA. > > > Jojo > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > *From:* James Bowery > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Sunday, May 27, 2012 9:42 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) > > No. I'm talking about the scientific technique of strong inference. > > In strong inference you are not simply testing a hypothesis. You are > admitting multiple hypotheses in the formulation of your experiments and > attempting to most economically compare them. It is legitimate, of course, > to have any number of experiments to achieve this comparison. > > In this case, there are two hypotheses: Darwinian Evolution and > Intelligent Design. > > On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > > ** > >
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
No, Jojo has no business in this forum for the simple reason that he thinks experiments are unnecessary to science. Nature magazine, too, decided that experiments were unnecessary when the British editor deferred to the US editor regarding Oriani's replication of cold fusion, and the US editor rejected the paper, because it went against prevailing theory. On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Peter Gluck wrote: > Dear Jojo, > > I would friendly suggest you to you to stop this discussion from the > simple reason that > the analogy is not valid. > Hot Fusion and Cold Fusion (LENR) are both real and possible, alternative, > in a way complementary solutions. > Evolution and Intelligent Project are opposites,mutually exclusive- and we > (you too) > can find hundreds of forums to discuss this subject ad infinitum. I am > reading Skeptic Magazine but my good friend G. who is a famous baptist > preacher keeps me informed with ID. > I think this was the first time this OR/OR dispute > was mentioned on this forum. But the analogy will not help. > > Peter > > > On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > >> ** >> OH my! What is your major malfunction? Are you experiencing major >> cognitive dissonance? The Darwinian Evolution Religion you've pledge >> yourself to is not as factual as you thought it was? Did I just hit a >> central nerve? I thought we were discussing with civility? I guess I just >> pissed you off too much with facts and logic. >> >> OK. Whatever. >> >> Jojo >> >> >> PS. Folks, if James' response does not illutrate my point enough, >> nothing will. Darwinian Evolution is a religion to its adherents. When >> someone brings up a good point of logic, they experience major cognitive >> dissonance and react like this. >> >> Parks experiences this everytime someone brings up evidence for Cold >> Fusion. Darwinists experience this when they can not answer a valid >> criticism of its Darwinian religion. >> >> The parallel has been clearly illustrated. My point is proven. >> >> >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> *From:* James Bowery >> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >> *Sent:* Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:30 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) >> >> OK, so you don't think you need an experiment. >> >> Go fuck yourself. >> >> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: >> >>> ** >>> I am unsure about your point or what you are asking. >>> >>> What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your question? >>> >>> Of course,there are strong inference. For example, if you find the >>> presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent >>> Designer, not Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance mutations. Random >>> processes never create Information, because information is "Order", the >>> exact opposite of Randomness. >>> >>> For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent sentence >>> requires the input of an Intelligent being. If your throw a bunch of >>> Scrabble letters on the ground, the following 2 sentences have equal chance >>> of occuring. >>> >>> "There is a God" >>> >>> "ethresi da Go" -(No, this is not a foreign language. This >>> is a random mixture of the same letters above.) >>> >>> >>> What is the difference between the 2 sentences above. Nothing as far as >>> randon chance is concerned. Yet for an Intelligent Entity, there is a huge >>> difference. What differentiates the 2 sentences? It is Information of >>> course. There is information in the first sentence that conveys an idea? >>> And Ideas are the purvue of Intelligent Beings. >>> >>> Now, do this with 4 letters and create a sentence 600,000 letters long; >>> you might begin to understand the complexity and the remarkable presence of >>> Information in our DNA. >>> >>> >>> Jojo >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> *From:* James Bowery >>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >>> *Sent:* Sunday, May 27, 2012 9:42 PM >>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) >>> >>> No. I'm talking about the scientific technique of strong inference. >>> >>> In strong inference you
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
Dear Jojo, I would friendly suggest you to you to stop this discussion from the simple reason that the analogy is not valid. Hot Fusion and Cold Fusion (LENR) are both real and possible, alternative, in a way complementary solutions. Evolution and Intelligent Project are opposites,mutually exclusive- and we (you too) can find hundreds of forums to discuss this subject ad infinitum. I am reading Skeptic Magazine but my good friend G. who is a famous baptist preacher keeps me informed with ID. I think this was the first time this OR/OR dispute was mentioned on this forum. But the analogy will not help. Peter On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > ** > OH my! What is your major malfunction? Are you experiencing major > cognitive dissonance? The Darwinian Evolution Religion you've pledge > yourself to is not as factual as you thought it was? Did I just hit a > central nerve? I thought we were discussing with civility? I guess I just > pissed you off too much with facts and logic. > > OK. Whatever. > > Jojo > > > PS. Folks, if James' response does not illutrate my point enough, nothing > will. Darwinian Evolution is a religion to its adherents. When someone > brings up a good point of logic, they experience major cognitive dissonance > and react like this. > > Parks experiences this everytime someone brings up evidence for Cold > Fusion. Darwinists experience this when they can not answer a valid > criticism of its Darwinian religion. > > The parallel has been clearly illustrated. My point is proven. > > > > > > - Original Message - > *From:* James Bowery > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:30 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) > > OK, so you don't think you need an experiment. > > Go fuck yourself. > > On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > >> ** >> I am unsure about your point or what you are asking. >> >> What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your question? >> >> Of course,there are strong inference. For example, if you find the >> presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent >> Designer, not Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance mutations. Random >> processes never create Information, because information is "Order", the >> exact opposite of Randomness. >> >> For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent sentence >> requires the input of an Intelligent being. If your throw a bunch of >> Scrabble letters on the ground, the following 2 sentences have equal chance >> of occuring. >> >> "There is a God" >> >> "ethresi da Go" -(No, this is not a foreign language. This >> is a random mixture of the same letters above.) >> >> >> What is the difference between the 2 sentences above. Nothing as far as >> randon chance is concerned. Yet for an Intelligent Entity, there is a huge >> difference. What differentiates the 2 sentences? It is Information of >> course. There is information in the first sentence that conveys an idea? >> And Ideas are the purvue of Intelligent Beings. >> >> Now, do this with 4 letters and create a sentence 600,000 letters long; >> you might begin to understand the complexity and the remarkable presence of >> Information in our DNA. >> >> >> Jojo >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> *From:* James Bowery >> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >> *Sent:* Sunday, May 27, 2012 9:42 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) >> >> No. I'm talking about the scientific technique of strong inference. >> >> In strong inference you are not simply testing a hypothesis. You are >> admitting multiple hypotheses in the formulation of your experiments and >> attempting to most economically compare them. It is legitimate, of course, >> to have any number of experiments to achieve this comparison. >> >> In this case, there are two hypotheses: Darwinian Evolution and >> Intelligent Design. >> >> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: >> >>> ** >>> Distinguish what from what? >>> >>> Are you asking if there are experiments in Darwinian Evolution and >>> experiments in Intelligent Design? >>> >>> >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> *From:* James Bowery >>> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >>> *Sent:* Sunday, May 27, 2012 7:08 PM >>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) >>> >>> Jojo, >>> >>> Where is the controlled experiment that distinguishes between the two? >>> There are LOTS of controlled experiments demonstrating cold fusion. >>> >>> >> > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
OH my! What is your major malfunction? Are you experiencing major cognitive
dissonance? The Darwinian Evolution Religion you've pledge yourself to is not
as factual as you thought it was? Did I just hit a central nerve? I thought
we were discussing with civility? I guess I just pissed you off too much with
facts and logic.
OK. Whatever.
Jojo
PS. Folks, if James' response does not illutrate my point enough, nothing
will. Darwinian Evolution is a religion to its adherents. When someone brings
up a good point of logic, they experience major cognitive dissonance and react
like this.
Parks experiences this everytime someone brings up evidence for Cold Fusion.
Darwinists experience this when they can not answer a valid criticism of its
Darwinian religion.
The parallel has been clearly illustrated. My point is proven.
- Original Message -
From: James Bowery
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 10:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
OK, so you don't think you need an experiment.
Go fuck yourself.
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
I am unsure about your point or what you are asking.
What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your question?
Of course,there are strong inference. For example, if you find the
presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent Designer,
not Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance mutations. Random processes
never create Information, because information is "Order", the exact opposite of
Randomness.
For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent sentence
requires the input of an Intelligent being. If your throw a bunch of Scrabble
letters on the ground, the following 2 sentences have equal chance of occuring.
"There is a God"
"ethresi da Go" -(No, this is not a foreign language. This is
a random mixture of the same letters above.)
What is the difference between the 2 sentences above. Nothing as far as
randon chance is concerned. Yet for an Intelligent Entity, there is a huge
difference. What differentiates the 2 sentences? It is Information of course.
There is information in the first sentence that conveys an idea? And Ideas
are the purvue of Intelligent Beings.
Now, do this with 4 letters and create a sentence 600,000 letters long; you
might begin to understand the complexity and the remarkable presence of
Information in our DNA.
Jojo
- Original Message -
From: James Bowery
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 9:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
No. I'm talking about the scientific technique of strong inference.
In strong inference you are not simply testing a hypothesis. You are
admitting multiple hypotheses in the formulation of your experiments and
attempting to most economically compare them. It is legitimate, of course, to
have any number of experiments to achieve this comparison.
In this case, there are two hypotheses: Darwinian Evolution and
Intelligent Design.
On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote:
Distinguish what from what?
Are you asking if there are experiments in Darwinian Evolution and
experiments in Intelligent Design?
- Original Message -
From: James Bowery
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
Jojo,
Where is the controlled experiment that distinguishes between the
two? There are LOTS of controlled experiments demonstrating cold fusion.
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
OK, so you don't think you need an experiment. Go fuck yourself. On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > ** > I am unsure about your point or what you are asking. > > What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your question? > > Of course,there are strong inference. For example, if you find the > presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent > Designer, not Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance mutations. Random > processes never create Information, because information is "Order", the > exact opposite of Randomness. > > For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent sentence > requires the input of an Intelligent being. If your throw a bunch of > Scrabble letters on the ground, the following 2 sentences have equal chance > of occuring. > > "There is a God" > > "ethresi da Go" -(No, this is not a foreign language. This is > a random mixture of the same letters above.) > > > What is the difference between the 2 sentences above. Nothing as far as > randon chance is concerned. Yet for an Intelligent Entity, there is a huge > difference. What differentiates the 2 sentences? It is Information of > course. There is information in the first sentence that conveys an idea? > And Ideas are the purvue of Intelligent Beings. > > Now, do this with 4 letters and create a sentence 600,000 letters long; > you might begin to understand the complexity and the remarkable presence of > Information in our DNA. > > > Jojo > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message - > *From:* James Bowery > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Sunday, May 27, 2012 9:42 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) > > No. I'm talking about the scientific technique of strong inference. > > In strong inference you are not simply testing a hypothesis. You are > admitting multiple hypotheses in the formulation of your experiments and > attempting to most economically compare them. It is legitimate, of course, > to have any number of experiments to achieve this comparison. > > In this case, there are two hypotheses: Darwinian Evolution and > Intelligent Design. > > On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > >> ** >> Distinguish what from what? >> >> Are you asking if there are experiments in Darwinian Evolution and >> experiments in Intelligent Design? >> >> >> >> - Original Message - >> *From:* James Bowery >> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com >> *Sent:* Sunday, May 27, 2012 7:08 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) >> >> Jojo, >> >> Where is the controlled experiment that distinguishes between the two? >> There are LOTS of controlled experiments demonstrating cold fusion. >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
I am unsure about your point or what you are asking. What exactly is your discussion point or what exactly is your question? Of course,there are strong inference. For example, if you find the presence of Information in DNA, that is an inference for Intelligent Designer, not Darwinian Evolution based on randon chance mutations. Random processes never create Information, because information is "Order", the exact opposite of Randomness. For instance, the assembling of random letters into a coherent sentence requires the input of an Intelligent being. If your throw a bunch of Scrabble letters on the ground, the following 2 sentences have equal chance of occuring. "There is a God" "ethresi da Go" -(No, this is not a foreign language. This is a random mixture of the same letters above.) What is the difference between the 2 sentences above. Nothing as far as randon chance is concerned. Yet for an Intelligent Entity, there is a huge difference. What differentiates the 2 sentences? It is Information of course. There is information in the first sentence that conveys an idea? And Ideas are the purvue of Intelligent Beings. Now, do this with 4 letters and create a sentence 600,000 letters long; you might begin to understand the complexity and the remarkable presence of Information in our DNA. Jojo - Original Message - From: James Bowery To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 9:42 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) No. I'm talking about the scientific technique of strong inference. In strong inference you are not simply testing a hypothesis. You are admitting multiple hypotheses in the formulation of your experiments and attempting to most economically compare them. It is legitimate, of course, to have any number of experiments to achieve this comparison. In this case, there are two hypotheses: Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design. On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: Distinguish what from what? Are you asking if there are experiments in Darwinian Evolution and experiments in Intelligent Design? - Original Message - From: James Bowery To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 7:08 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) Jojo, Where is the controlled experiment that distinguishes between the two? There are LOTS of controlled experiments demonstrating cold fusion.
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
No. I'm talking about the scientific technique of strong inference. In strong inference you are not simply testing a hypothesis. You are admitting multiple hypotheses in the formulation of your experiments and attempting to most economically compare them. It is legitimate, of course, to have any number of experiments to achieve this comparison. In this case, there are two hypotheses: Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design. On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 6:27 AM, Jojo Jaro wrote: > ** > Distinguish what from what? > > Are you asking if there are experiments in Darwinian Evolution and > experiments in Intelligent Design? > > > > - Original Message - > *From:* James Bowery > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Sent:* Sunday, May 27, 2012 7:08 PM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) > > Jojo, > > Where is the controlled experiment that distinguishes between the two? > There are LOTS of controlled experiments demonstrating cold fusion. > >
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
Distinguish what from what? Are you asking if there are experiments in Darwinian Evolution and experiments in Intelligent Design? - Original Message - From: James Bowery To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2012 7:08 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) Jojo, Where is the controlled experiment that distinguishes between the two? There are LOTS of controlled experiments demonstrating cold fusion.
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
Jojo, Where is the controlled experiment that distinguishes between the two? There are LOTS of controlled experiments demonstrating cold fusion.
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
The parallel between Hot fusion and Darwinian Evolution is not in the theory per se, but in how people treat each theory. It has become a religion to their respective adherents, There is no other truth to them. Nothing you say will change their minds. Parks will never consider any evidence of Cold Fusion and I suspect Jed will never consider any evidence of Intelligent Design. Parks will persecute any adherent of Cold Fusion by mockery and ridicule and labelling them quack pseudoscientists. I suspect Jed does the same. The parallel is clear, and the behavior is the same. The sooner we realize that this is a religiious movement, the sooner will can understand why people will not accept any evidence for Cold Fusion. Adherents of respective theories must slowly die away for the paradigm to shift to new thinking. Old adherents have too much to loose by changing their minds now. They will stick it out to the end despite the daily acculumation of piles of evidence to the contrary. It is futile to expect old adherents to accept "Tritium Evidence" or any other evidence for that matter, just as it is futile for me to expect Jed to accept any "DNA Information" evidence pointing to Intelligent Design. Jojo - Original Message - From: Guenter Wildgruber To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2012 6:02 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) -- Von: Jojo Jaro An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 11:17 Samstag, 26.Mai 2012 Betreff: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) There appears to be... # Jojo, ...My goal in brining up this discussion is to try to draw a parallel between what is happening with Hot Fusion and Darwinian Evolution Theory ... - My take:: - The immediate connection is not clear to me. 'Hot fusion' seems to be an established fact to me. Will say: It happens within our observing distance. The question is whether it can be brought down to earth, so to say. Which a technical issue, and NOT an epistemological or even scientific one. You say: ... In Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism thought, once again, there "appears" to be some "established" theories... ... Well. To connect LENR to Darwinism and then to intelligent design, seems dubious to me, to say the least. You say: ... Folks, there is a parallel here. We all have our pet "Hot Fusion" theories that we can not and will not deviate from. For Parks, its Hot Fusion, for Jed, its Darwinian Evolution, for me, its Intelligent Design and Creationism. ... Well. Not all 'pet theories' are created equal. To Your excuse: Even Popper was confused at times wether 'Evolution' was a tautology or not, but retracted that. (A tautology is nonfalsifiable, and as such is not debatable, except as a -ahem- non-debatable axiom. The debatability of axioms is a serious issue, and ultimately can lead to the destruction of our human habitat, which I not really appreciate as an option.) The LENR issue commands our utmost attention! So please do not confuse the issue by crossreferencing it to 'Evolution', which is, without conclusive LOGICAL connection: UNSUBSTANTIAL! Guenther
Re: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR)
Von: Jojo Jaro An: vortex-l@eskimo.com Gesendet: 11:17 Samstag, 26.Mai 2012 Betreff: [Vo]:Darwinian Evolution (Was Tritium in Ni-H LENR) There appears to be... # Jojo, ...My goal in brining up this discussion is to try to draw a parallel between what is happening with Hot Fusion and Darwinian Evolution Theory ... - My take:: - The immediate connection is not clear to me. 'Hot fusion' seems to be an established fact to me. Will say: It happens within our observing distance. The question is whether it can be brought down to earth, so to say. Which a technical issue, and NOT an epistemological or even scientific one. You say: ... In Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism thought, once again, there "appears" to be some "established" theories... ... Well. To connect LENR to Darwinism and then to intelligent design, seems dubious to me, to say the least. You say: ... Folks, there is a parallel here. We all have our pet "Hot Fusion" theories that we can not and will not deviate from. For Parks, its Hot Fusion, for Jed, its Darwinian Evolution, for me, its Intelligent Design and Creationism. ... Well. Not all 'pet theories' are created equal. To Your excuse: Even Popper was confused at times wether 'Evolution' was a tautology or not, but retracted that. (A tautology is nonfalsifiable, and as such is not debatable, except as a -ahem- non-debatable axiom. The debatability of axioms is a serious issue, and ultimately can lead to the destruction of our human habitat, which I not really appreciate as an option.) The LENR issue commands our utmost attention! So please do not confuse the issue by crossreferencing it to 'Evolution', which is, without conclusive LOGICAL connection: UNSUBSTANTIAL! Guenther
